No-hearing hearings

Last updated

No-Hearing Hearings (2006) is the title of a study published by Professor Mark P. Denbeaux of the Center for Policy and Research at Seton Hall University School of Law, his son Joshua Denbeaux, and prepared under his supervision by research fellows at the center. It was released on October 17, 2006. [1] It is one of a series of studies on the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the detainees, and government operations that the Center for Policy and Research has prepared based on Department of Defense data.

Contents

The study analyzes the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT's) for 393 detainees held on Guantánamo Bay from 2004 to 2005. [2] The study is notable as the first documentation that the OARDEC convened multiple Tribunals for some captives when their original Tribunals determined they should not have been classified as enemy combatants. It generally gained a finding of enemy combatant status on the second hearing, but some panels resisted.

The Denbeaux represent two detainees at Guantánamo Bay.

The study

The report was based upon information given by lawyers for 102 Guantanamo detainees and transcripts of the tribunals, which were released by the government under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Associated Press. [1] [2] [3] It analyzes the backgrounds of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay as represented in their files and how the CSRTs determined their status.

Combatant Status Review Tribunals

This is the trailer where the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held. The detainee's hands and feet are shackled to a bolt in the floor in front of the white plastic chair. Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed. Trailer where CSR Tribunals were held.jpg
This is the trailer where the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held. The detainee's hands and feet are shackled to a bolt in the floor in front of the white plastic chair. Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed.

Following the United States Supreme Court's rulings in Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), in which it held that foreign detainees and United States citizens had the right of habeas corpus to challenge their detention before an impartial tribunal, the Bush administration developed the process of Combatant Status Review Tribunals to serve as tribunals for the detainees. In addition, the process was to fulfill the obligation under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, to determine if persons were prisoners of war or enemy combatants.

The Article says:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

These hearings were conducted based on the assertion by the Bush administration that detainees in the war in Afghanistan were not eligible for prisoner of war status according to the terms of Article 2 of the GCIII and therefore designated unlawful combatant. The Bush administration had contended that the Taliban was not a legal government of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda was a terrorist organization.

The Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held by the United States Department of Defense between July 8, 2004 through March 29, 2005, to provide an impartial tribunal for detainees to challenge their detention. It was developed as an alternative to detainees' taking habeas corpus petitions through the federal court system. The status of each detainee was reviewed to see if they qualified for detention as an enemy combatant.

In 2006, after the CSRTs were completed, the Center for Policy and Research at Seton Hall University School of Law published No-Hearing Hearings, its review of the process and outcome for detainees based on publicly available materials, some procured under the Associated Press Freedom of Information Act request. The Center study was based on DOD data, some of which was incomplete.

Findings in the 2006 report

No-Hearing Hearings contained the following conclusions: [1] [2]

According to the Associated Press, Mark Denbeaux said, "These were not hearings. These were shams;" he called the hearings a show trial. [2]

Comment

With the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in mind, Andrew Cohen, the legal commentator of the Washington Post , stated:

If the actual trials of the detainees are as empty and shallow and pre-ordained as were the Status Review Tribunals there is every reason to be mortified at the prospect -- made real by the legislation -- that the federal courts will be frozen out of vital oversight functions. If a regular trial court proceeding were this shoddy, this unwilling to perform a truth-seeking function, this unable to achieve a fair process, the judge presiding over it would be impeached. [3]

Nat Hentoff opined in the Village Voice that the "conditions of confinement and a total lack of the due process that the Supreme Court ordered in 'Rasul v. Bush' and 'Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'" makes US government officials culpable for war crimes. [5] His article continues:

Co-author Joshua Denbeaux tells me: 'The government's own documents proved that the government's claims that the prisoners were the 'worst of the worst' was a false and shameful public relations ploy ... We hope that our reports will convince Congress to amend the Military Commissions Act and restore federal jurisdiction.' If that happens, the prisoners could contest their conditions of confinement, their imprisonment, and their sentences. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

Unlawful combatant Person who engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war

An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is, according to United States law, a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed to not be protected by the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross points out that the terms "unlawful combatant", "illegal combatant" or "unprivileged combatant/belligerent" are not defined in any international agreements.

Combatant Status Review Tribunal Tribunals of US detainees at Guantanamo Bay

The Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) were a set of tribunals for confirming whether detainees held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp had been correctly designated as "enemy combatants". The CSRTs were established July 7, 2004 by order of U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz after U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush and were coordinated through the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants.

Competent Tribunal is a term used in Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Third Geneva Convention, which states:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Abdullah Mujahid is a citizen of Afghanistan who is still held in extrajudicial detention after being transferred from United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba — to an Afghan prison.

Hamidullah was a citizen of Afghanistan, who was held in extrajudicial detention in the United States's Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba. His Guantanamo Internee Security Number is 1119. Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts estimate he was born in 1963, in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Ahmed Adil is a citizen of China who was held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps in Cuba.

Starting in 2002, the United States government detained twenty-two Uyghurs in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. The last three Uyghur detainees, Yusef Abbas, Hajiakbar Abdulghupur and Saidullah Khalik, were released from Guantanamo on December 29, 2013, when they were transferred to Slovakia.

Adel Hassan Hamad is a citizen of Sudan, who was held in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camp, in Cuba. Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts estimate he was born in 1958, in Port Sudan, Sudan. Adel Hassan was repatriated to Sudan without charges on December 12, 2007.

Ali Ahmad Muhammad Al Rahizi

Ali Ahmad Muhammad Al Rahizi is a citizen of Yemen who was held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba. His Guantanamo Internment Serial Number is 45. Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts reports he was born on October 13, 1979, in Taiz, Yemen.

No Longer Enemy Combatant (NLEC) is a term used by the U.S. military for a group of 38 Guantanamo detainees whose Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) determined they were not "enemy combatants". None of them were released right away. Ten of them were allowed to move to the more comfortable Camp Iguana. Others, such as Sami Al Laithi, remained in solitary confinement.

Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi is a citizen of Libya who was held from June 2002 until March 2010 in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba because the United States classified him as an enemy combatant. His internment number was 654.

Seton Hall report, also known as the Denbeaux study, is any of several studies, published by the Center for Policy and Research at Seton Hall University Law School in the United States beginning in 2006, about the detainees and United States government policy related to operations at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. At a time when the government revealed little about these operations, the reports were based on analysis of data maintained and released by the Department of Defense. The director of the Law School's Center, Mark P. Denbeaux, supervised law student teams in their analysis and writing the studies. The first study was Report on Guantanamo Detainees: A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

The Combatant Status Review Tribunal the US Department of Defense commissioned, like the Tribunals described in Army Regulation 190-8, which they were modeled after, were three member panels, led by a tribunal president.

Stephen Abraham is an American lawyer and officer in the United States Army Reserve. In June 2007, he became the first officer who had served on a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to publicly criticize its operations. He said the evidence provided did not meet legal standard, and the members of the panels were strongly pressured by superiors to find that detainees should be classified as enemy combatants. Abraham served in the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants.

Al Odah v. United States is a court case filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention as enemy combatants of Guantanamo detainees. It was consolidated with Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which is the lead name of the decision.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. In 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

al-Qaeda safe house

Al-Qaeda is understood to have operated a number of safe houses, some of which were used as training centres.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Nat Hentoff (December 8, 2006). "Bush's War Crimes Cover-up". Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2008-06-17. Retrieved 2007-04-02.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Gitmo detainees denied witnesses: Lawyer calls legal proceedings 'shams,'". NBC News. November 17, 2006. Retrieved 2007-04-02.
  3. 1 2 Andrew Cohen (2006-11-30). "Gitmo Justice Is a Joke". Special to the Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2006-12-01. Retrieved 2007-04-02.
  4. ↑ Neil A. Lewis (2004-11-08). "Guantánamo Prisoners Getting Their Day, but Hardly in Court". New York Times . mirror Archived 2007-09-30 at the Wayback Machine
  5. 1 2 Nat Hentoff (2006-12-17). "Our Own Nuremberg Trials". Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2008-04-22. Retrieved 2007-04-02.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.